History With a Purpose: The Fate of Paracelsus

Author(s): Allen G. Debus

Source: Pharmacy in History, Vol. 26, No. 2 (1984), pp. 83-96
Published by: American Institute of the History of Pharmacy
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41109480
Accessed: 14-06-2015 19:17 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Institute of the History of Pharmacy is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Pharmacy in History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 14 Jun 2015 19:17:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HistoryWitha Purpose:
The Fate of Paracelsus
byAllenG. Debus*

J. he historyofscience,thehistory of Purelypositivistic interpretations are less in

medicine, and the of
history pharmacy are vogue than they once were since we know
very recent, academically speaking.There that the sciences have not always been
are significant exceptionsto anyrule,butin influencedonly by factorsthat we in the
generalone may say that these disciplines twentiethcenturywould call "scientific."
havebecomerespectedfieldsofhigherlearn- Even theacceptanceor rejectionofscientific
ing onlyin thiscentury. . . and it mightbe and medicalthought in thepast at timesmay
more accurateto say onlyin the past half have been relatedto non-scientific factors.
century.As yetthereexistslittleinterestin One maygo further to statethathistory has
the historiesof these disciplinesalthough beenused byhistorians and scientiststo pro-
historiographie studieshave long been the mote theirown beliefsin oppositionto the
subjectofintenseinterestto scholarsinother viewsofothers.
areas of history.I thinkthatthe reasonfor In short,I believethatthehistory ofthe
this is clear. In manyareas of historythe of the historyof science,thehistory
writing
havealreadybeen of medicineand the
majortextsanddocuments historyof pharmacy
examinedand evaluated.Conflicting inter- reflectstheactualdevelopment ofthesefields
pretationshave led naturallyto historio- andI wouldliketoillustrate thiswiththecase
graphieresearch.This is notyetthe case in of Paracelsus (1493-1541)whose reputation
the scienceswherewe are stillreadingand
tryingto understandthe primarysources,
many of which have not been read for
hundredsofyears.Thereseldomseemsto be
timeto reflecton thehistory ofthewritingof Inaugural
oursubject.
But I thinkthata case maybe madefor Lecture
devotingtime to such studies. Historyis
muchmorethaneditingtextsor presenting OPENING THE
the longlost data of thepast to the modern INTERNATIONALCONGRESS
reader.Historydoes involveinterpretation,
and thepast twodecadeshave surelyshown FOR THE HISTORY OF PHARMACY
that historianshave significantly variant
interpretations of scientificdevelopment.
* MorrisFishbeinProfessorof the Historyof Scienceand SEPTEMBER22, 1983tiWASHINGTON,D.C.
TheUniversity
Medicine, ofChicago,1126East 59thStreet
SS25; Chicago,Illinois60637.

Vol. 26 (1984)No. 2 83

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 14 Jun 2015 19:17:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
has variedgreatlyat differenttimesoverthe
past fourhundredyears.Althoughhis work
had causeda stormofdebateinthesixteenth
and seventeenth centurieshe was not even
mentionedto graduatestudentswho were
being trainedin the historyof science at
HarvardUniversity inthe1950s.Thereasons
forthisrelatebothto the internaldevelop-
mentof medicineand the sciences,and to
historical
tradition.
It would be possible to center my
remarkson recent studies.This would be
easy to do because the work of Sudhoff
broughtabout a near resurrection of this
Renaissancefigure.Then again, a recogni-
tionofnon-positivisticfactorsin thedevelop-
mentofscienceand medicinehas beenone of
the mostsignificant in recent
developments
researchin ourfield.But ratherthandiscuss
the researchof the presentcentury,let me
directmyremarksprimarily toa muchearlier
period,the sixteenth throughtheeighteenth
centuries.Herewe willbe abletoexaminethe
reactionto Paracelsusin the periodof the
Scientific
Revolution. Bynotingthechanging
attitudetowardhimand hisworkwe maybe
able to see some reason for the value of
historiographiestudiestoday.
in Renaissance
The Paracelsians Histories
I am aware that the writingof the
historyof scienceand medicinehas a very
long history.From the ancientperiod the
shorthistoriesof geometryand medicineby
Proclusand Celsusare wellknown.1Nor did
thistradition expirein theMiddleAges. Gui
de Chauliac prefacedhis famousSurgery
(1343)withan historicalsurveyofthefield.2
True,thereare not manyof thesehistories
stillextant,butthereare enoughofthemto
indicatethatit was consideredimportant to
knownot onlythe subjectmatterof one's
field,butits historicaldevelopmentas well.
Still,it was duringthe sixteenthand
seventeenthcenturiesthat we see for the
firsttime a growingnumberof historical
writings inthesciences.Theseshowus oneof
the mostcharacteristic featuresofhistorical
writingin all periods,that the historian
writeswitha purposein mind.He maythink
thathe is withoutbias,butthisis rarelythe
84
This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 14 Jun 2015 19:17:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
case. Indeed, the historianis oftena prop-
agandisteven whenhe maynotbe aware of
it himself.In thelate 1960swe witnessedthe
birthof a new school of radical historians
whoseworkfitthetemperofthetimes.And
today we see a vigorousgroupof scholars
investigatingthe history of women, a
developmentthat parallelsand reflectsthe
currentfeminist movement. In thesixteenth
and seventeenthcenturieswe see a similar
situation.Themoveforreform inreligionand
sciencewas thenreflected in thewritingsof
contemporary historians.
The medicaland chemicalreformsof
Paracelsusweretobe seenintheworksofhis
followers3 who sought theoretical and
practicalchanges in medicine.On the one
hand they demandeda new-and to their
minds,a trulyreligious -understandingof
the worldbased on a mysticalview of the
cosmos,whichtheyinterpreted throughman
the microcosmand the all encompassing
macrocosm.Everything in thesmallworldof
manwas to be foundinthegreatworldofthe
macrocosm.And man, as a true natural
magician,was to learnofhisCreatorthrough
the study of God's creation: Nature.
Chemistrywas to be the key to this new
knowledge,sincebothnatureand manwere
best understoodthroughchemicalprocesses
and analogies.ButiftheParacelsiansargued
fora newtheoretical basisofknowledge, they
also saw a need forpracticalreform because
humanphysiology was describedin chemical
or alchemicalterminology. New chemically
prepared medicineswere used to combat
diseases that were thoughtto be chemical
disorders.These were consideredto be far
more usefulthan the Galenicalherbalmix-
tures.The Paracelsianmedicine,scienceand
pharmacyof the sixteenthcenturywas anti-
Galenic and anti-Aristotelian.These called
forfreshobservations and interpretation by
chemists,it was argued,who were the best
physicians. The Paracelsians were anti-
establishment, callingforradicalreformsin
bothmedicineand education.
This message was elaborated by a
numberof authorswho used historyto sup-
porttheirconvictions. An exampleis Peter
Severinus(1542-1602),physicianto theKing
PharmacyinHistory
of Denmarkand authorof one of the first,
and surelyone ofthebest,summariesofthe
Paracelsianphilosophy of naturein his Idea
medicinaephilosophicae(1571).4 He began
thisworkwitha chapteron the originand
progressoftheart ofmedicine. . . and here
he wroteofthedeclineofmedicineinantiqui-
ty. For Severinus,Galen had been no more
thana compilerwhohad triedto place order
intotheworksofhispredecessors.Seekinga
unifying principlewithlaws and demonstra-
tions,Galen had come at lengthupon the
writingsof the geometricians.Seduced by
their exquisite demonstrations,he had
attemptedto make medicine a part of
geometrywith its own principles,axioms, Allen G. Debus of theUniversity
ofChicago
and mathematical explanations.So influen- deliversInaugural Address thatopenedthe
tial had been his workthat onlyin recent InternationalCongress
forPharmacy.
years had the fallacyof his approachbeen
demonstrated.When Fernel tried Galen's
methodsand laws ofcurehe foundthatthey
failedin thetreatment ofthosenewdiseases ... in the scholesnothingmaybe receiuednor
thatwere thenravagingthe continent.We allowed that sauorethnot of Aristotle,Gallen,
nowknow,Severinuscontinued, thattheonly Auicen,and otherEthnickes,wherebythe yong
true medicineis that to be foundin the beginnersare either not acquaintedwith this
writingsof Paracelsus and, far frombeing orels itis brought
doctrine, intohatredwiththem.
mathematically inspired,thissciencefindsits AndabrodelikewisetheGalenistsbe so armedand
rootsin theobservations ofthechemists. defended by the protection,priuiledgesand
authoritie
of Princes,thatnothingcan be allowed
The attack on mathematics and thattheydisaloweand nothingmaybe receiued
mathematicalreasoning seen here was thatagreethnotwiththeirpleasuresand doctrine
characteristic of Paracelsianswho generally 6

saw the value of mathematics onlyin quan-

tification
through weightsandmeasures,that
is, in theprocedurescustomary in a chemical
or pharmaceutical laboratory.5 historical
But
evidencecould be, and was used far more
broadlythan this. Here we may turnto a
workratherexpansively titledThedifference
betwene theauncientPhisicke,firsttaughtby
the godlyforefathers, consistingin vnitie
peace and concord:and the latterPhisicke
proceedingfrom Idolaters,Ethniches,and
Heathen:as Gallen,and suchotherconsisting
in duality,discorde,and contrarietie (1585).
The author,R. Bostocke,Esquire,attacked
thefalsenaturalphilosophy and medicinebe-
ing taught at the universities.
Althoughthe
newchemicalmedicinecouldbe provenvalid
by experience,how were studentsto know
this?
WithBostockeas withotherwritersof
this period, religionwas a major factor.
Aristotleand Galenhadbeenheathens.Their
false philosophyand medicine had been
perpetuatedby lecturerswhoread and com-
mentedon theirtextswithoutanysearchfor
confirmation. Ratherthan the books of the
ancients,the seeker of truthshouldlearn
fromGod.
"TheAlmighty CreatouroftheHeauensand
the Earth(ChristianReader),hathset beforeour
eyes two most principaliBookes: the one of
Nature,theotherofhiswritten Word. . ."7
Here was a differentapproach to
nature, calling for the destructionof the
philosophyof the ancientsand its replace-
ment by a new science based upon Holy

Vol.26 (1984)No. 2 85

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 14 Jun 2015 19:17:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Scripture,observations and experiment. This
wouldbe a Christianphilosophy.
For Bostockehistorywas an important
tool and he devotednearlyone half of his
treatise to the historyof chemistryand
medicine.8 Believing that the pristine
knowledge granted to Adam could be
recoveredfromthe Old Testamentand the
CorpusHermeticum whichwas thenthought
to be almostas old, he argued that these
truthshad been partiallypreservedin the
writingsof the pre-Socratics and Plato. But
Aristotlehad attacked his teacher while
Galen who had adopted the philosophyof
Aristotle had compoundedhis sins by
persecutingChristians.In the succeeding
centuriesonlya dedicatedfew-for themost
part Byzantineand Islamicalchemists,had
preservedthe most ancient truths,which
theyhad passed on frommasterto pupil.
Thus, forBostockeParacelsuswas a great
man,buthe was notan innovator. Rather,his
reforms in medicinewereproperly to be com-
pared with the reforms of Copernicuswho
had rediscovered thetrueancientastronomy
and the reformsof Luther,Melanchthon,
Zwingliand Calvinwhohad rediscovered the
theologicaltruthsofantiquity.
It was tobe expectedthatsuchaccounts
wereto be attackedbythosewhoconsidered
theworkofAristotleand Galenthegloryof
the learned world. Such an author was
Thomas Erastus (1524-1583)who pictured
Paracelsus as an ignorantcharlatanwho
preferred magicand thedevilto theclassical
authorities.9More interesting, however,is
the reaction of those who sought com-
promise. Johann Albertus Wimpenaeus
(1569) saw value in the workof Paracelsus,
but he did not reject the ancients since
wisdomwas to be foundin both.10 Guinterof
Andernach(c. 1505-1574) is even more
interesting as a man who was perhapsthe
most famous of the Renaissance medical
humanists.11 As a young scholar he had
prepared translationsof muchof Galen as
well as Paul of Aegina, Oribasius, and
Alexanderof Tralles. And as Professorof
Medicinein Paris he had taughtAndreas
Vesaliusand MichaelServetus,bothofwhom
had servedas his assistants.
86
This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 14 Jun 2015 19:17:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
In many respects Guinterrepresents
the quintessentialscholar,one who never
ceases to studyorto learn.Thus,we findthat
as he grew olderhe carefullyread the new
Paracelsian medicalworks. But how were
these to be assessed by a learnedGalenist?
Guinter's answeris to be foundinhismassive
De medicinaveterietnovapublishedin 1571.
Hereitmaybe seenthathe hadformed a high
opinion of the new chemicallyprepared
drugs,whichwereso closelyassociatedwith
the Paracelsian authors.Indeed, he wrote
thatthe"medicines ofthechemistsare more
than divine."12Still, this humanistinsisted
that the theoreticalbasis of medicinemust
remaingroundedon Galenism.Paracelsian
thoughtwas offensively mysticaland itspro-
ponentswerearrogant.
Guinter's problem was to dismiss
Paracelsus and his fanaticaldiscipleswhile
retaining the benefits of the chemical
medicines.Thisgoal was quitedifferent from
the goal of a Paracelsiansuch as Bostocke,
but like Bostocke,Guinterturnedto history
forhisanswer.13 The earliestmen,he wrote,
werestrongand neededonlysimpleand mild
remediesfor retainingtheir health. More
debilitatingdiseasearose onlylaterwhenthe
accumulatedluxuriesofcenturiesresultedin
a permanentcorruptionof mankind.It is
thenthatwe see different - resins
medicines
and aromaticsubstances-introducedin the
textsoftheIslamicand Indianauthors.It has
been the destinyof Paracelsus not onlyto
restore to use chemicalsknown to other
authors,but also to enrich them with a
treasuryof new waters,liquors,salts and
oils-medicinesoftenmore efficaciousthan
thetraditional ones. Guinter'sanswerto the
currentmedicaldebate thereforewas com-
promise.Bothkindsofmedicineswereneed-
ed. "Theancientson accountoftimehonored
authorityare to be given firstplace," but
therewas muchofgreatvaluein theworkof
the morerecentchemists.WouldthatGalen
had been more brief and more accurate,
would that Theophrastus[Paracelsus]had
been moreopenand candid!Thereare faults
and virtuesin theworkofbothfactions,and
physicians mustchoosethebestfromeach.14
In contrastwithBostocke,Guinterof
Andernachdidnotseek to recovera pristine
PharmacyinHistory
medicineknownto Adamas a meansofprov-
ing the antiquityof Paracelsian truths.
Instead,theancientartofmedicinewas once
more ascribedto Greek authors.Chemical
medicineshad beenintroduced bytheArabic
physicians.They were later forgottenand
eventuallyrediscoveredby Paracelsus.This
had been a notableachievement and he was
to be praised for it. But his mystical
cosmologycould be safelyignored-or else
simplyshownto be a restatement ofconcepts
knownto theancientGreeks.
Daniel Sennert(1572-1637),Professor
of Medicineat Wittenberg, was also faced
with making an assessment in his De
chymicorum cum Aristoteliciset Galenicis
consensu ac dissensu (1619). 15 Like
Andernach,Sennertapprovedof chemically
preparedmedicineswhileat the same time
condemning the mysticalworldview of the
Paracelsians.And likeAndernachhe sought
historicalconfirmation
of his interpretation.
After a short and rather unexceptional
historyof alchemyhe turnedto Paracelsus
whom he recognizedas a major figure.
Paracelsus had rightlyunderstood that
"Medicines might better be prepared"
butin hiszeal forreform
throughchemistry,
he had almostoverthrown notonlymedicine,
butall theothersciencesas well.
He railed at Galen & Avicen, and all the
Academicks;calledthe Doctorsof Paris, Padua,
andMontpelior, and all theProfessorsofPhysick, De ortu et progressuchemiae (1668) he
Professors ofLyes,and said theywereLyars,and
not Doctors in his Writings.He burnt the
CanonicalVolumeofAvicen,to shewhishatredto
old Physick,and to incense his Disciples with earlydate,
hatredto old Physick.16
For Sennert the works of the ancients
remained of great value, and to be used in
conjunctionwith chemistry.But, he added,
"thereis a difference betweenChymistry and
Paracelsian Physick,for Chymistrywas used
beforethetimeofParacelsus.Andthoughhe used
it,yetit is notnecessary thatall should Conringius
Chymists
be Paracelsians,and embracehis opinions."17
Sennert thus praised chemical
remedies, butgave Paracelsuslittlecreditfor
theirintroduction. Rather,theywere to be
ascribedto JohnIsaac Hollandusand to Basil
Vol. 26 (1984) No. 2
This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 14 Jun 2015 19:17:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Valentine.His mysticalphilosophyof the
world was an abominationand Paracelsus
had studied magic and had insistedthat
witcheshad moreknowledgeofdiseasethan
all theuniversities.18
Ancients
versusModerns
It was thuspossibleto arguehistorical-
ly, as did Guinterand Sennert,in favorof
chemicallyprepared medicines.But they
reduced or even eliminatedthe role of
Paracelsus,in theirintroduction to medicine,
whileat the same timecondemning himfor
hisoccultand mystically
religiousphilosophy.
Thisprovedto be an appealingsolutionto the
problemand it was to be foundwithincreas-
ing frequencyamong seventeenthcentury
authors.Indeed,onemaycitetheParacelsian
debatesas one oftheearliesthistoriographie
conflicts in the sciences.Let me turnbriefly
to one moreexample.In 1648oneofthemost
learned classicists of the day, Hermann
Conringius (1606-1681) who taught at
Helmstedt, published his De hermética
Aegyptiorum vetereet Paracelsicorumnova
Medicina.An Aristotelian
and a Galenist,he
opposed the chemical medicines of the
Paracelsians and rejected the historical
existenceofHermesTrismegistus. Thiswork
was attackedtwentyyears later by Olaus
Borrichius (1626-1690), a professor of
chemistry and botanyin Copenhagen.In his
pointed to evidence that the origins of
chemicalknowledgecouldbe tracedto a very
at least to TubaiCain longbefore
the Deluge. As for Hermes Trismegistus,
Borrichius had no doubtas to hisexistenceor
to his positionas a founderof alchemy:
"Verùm quo auctore coeperit primumin
Aegypto Chemia, opportune aliquis
percunctabitur.Equidem nil dubitamus
Hermeti sive MercurioturnMedicinae,turn
Chemiae adscribere originem.. . ,"19In short,
was mistaken regardingtheanti-
quity of the art and the role of Hermes
Trismegistus initstransmission to therestof
theworldfromEgypt.
Conringius,respectedas one of the
mostlearnedscholarsofEurope,was deeply
offendedby this work of Borrichius,and
87
whenhe published a newandgreatlyexpand- BorrichiusattackedConringiusfurther
ed versionof his De HerméticaMedicinain for his rejectionof the value of chemical
1669he appendedan "Apologetici^adversus medicines.He picturedParacelsusas a great
calumniaset insectationesOlai Borrichii." master who had rediscoveredthe truths
Here he argued that it was impossibleto knownto theancientEgyptianadepts.
know the original Hermetic doctrines This historicaldebate was given wide
becausetheyhadbeenso alteredbytime,but publicitythroughlengthyreviews in the
whatwe do knowis highlysuspect.Hermetic Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
medicineis infectedwithmagicand impiety Societyof Londonin 1668 and 1674,and in
and,indeed,Egyptianknowledgeas a whole theJournaldesSçavansin 1675.22Thepoints
was impiousand filledwith superstitious discussed regarding the antiquity of
rites.Those who writeof the importance of chemistrywere considered of sufficient
Egyptianmagicare themselves suspectsince significancefor the major texts, the De
thismagicis notnaturalbutdemonicmagic. HerméticaMedicinaofConringius andtheDe
As for Paracelsus and his followers,their ortuetprogressuchemiaeofBorrichius, to be
work has corruptedall philosophy.Their consideredfundamental sourcesforchemical
threeprinciples are uselessand theirmetallic historiansat least until the close of the
medicineshavebeenplagiarizedfromearlier eighteenth century.23
physicianssuch as Arnaldof Villanovaand Paracelsusand theEnlightened
RaymondLull. As forthe rest,it is "partim
impiam. . . partimvanamet absurdum."20 The middledecades of the seventeenth
Borrichiusdid not let the case rest at centuryserveas a watershedthatseparates
this point. In a new work,the Hermetis, modernEuropefromitspast.Thisholdstrue
Aegyptiorum, et chemicorumsapientia ab forthesciencesno less thanit does formore
Hermanni Conringius animadversionibus traditional areas ofresearch.We lookinvain
vindicataper Olaum Borrichium(1674) he foractiveParacelsianor Helmontian factions
repliedthat Hermeswas mostcertainlyan in the newlyformedscientific academiesof
historical figure and that the art of Londonand Paris. Van Helmontwas stilla
transmutation ofmetalshad beendiscovered name to be reckonedwithin 1700; but the
by him. This was the reasonwhythe Egyp- finaleditionofhis Opera omniaappearedin
tians had been able to accumulateenough 1707and up-to-date iatrochemists weremore
wealthto carryout theirvast buildingpro- likely to turnto theworks ofWillisorSylvius.
jects. Nor were the works of the later The worksofParacelsushad beentranslated
Greeks -authors such as Aristotle, intoLatinas recently as 1658,buthisnameis
Theophrastus, Euclid and Ptolemy-as seldom to be foundin the early scientific
perfectas Conringius wouldwish.Whatwas journals. While he remaineda figureof
to be praisedin themmightwellbe ascribed admiration to thoseoutsideofthenewscien-
to thefactthatmanyofthemhad studiedin tificestablishment, he was ignoredor attack-
Egypt and had partaken of the ancient ed by the academicians.We are interested
wisdomstillbeingtaughtthere. thenin twogroups,firstthemembersofthe
academies,forthemostpartmechanists, and
And as forHippocratesand Galen,. . . Cos, the second, the still active followersof the
Countryof theformer, was so nearAegypt,that Renaissancephilosophies of nature.It need
doubtlesshe thencereceivedgreatadvantageto hardly be said that their beliefscoloredtheir
his Medicalknowledge;and thatDemocritus, his historicalviewpoints.
Master, who had been long acquaintedwith In medicinewe find that the com-
Aegypt,hadquestionlesssuggestedmanythingsto
him:ThatGalenalso hadlivedlongat Alexandria, promisepositionsoughtby Andernachand
and was wontto advisetheGrecianCandidatsof Sennertprevailed.By 1700 therewas little
Physickto travelthitherfor experience.As for debateoverthevalueofchemically prepared
Ptolemy,thathe was no Grecian,but an Alexan- medicines.In wordingsimilarto that of
drian,or aPelusiot,andconsequentlyoí Aegypt.21 Guinter ofAndernach, thefirstnationalphar-

88 PharmacyinHistory

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 14 Jun 2015 19:17:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A goodidea ofthetypesofequipment used to
preparechemicaldrugsshortly afterthetime
ofParacelsuscan begainedfromthisviewof
the chemicallaboratoryof the Grand Duke
FrancescoI of Tuscany,as depictedbyJan
van der Straet (Stradanus), 1570. (From:
Emil Ernst Ploss, Heinz Roosen-Runge,
Heinrich Schipperges, Herwig Buntz,
Alchimia: Ideologie und Technologie,
München:Moos,1970).
macopoeia,printedin London in 1618, had
given pride of place to the traditional
remedies,but added that"we neitherreject
norspurnthenewsubsidiary medicinesofthe
morerecentchemistsand we have conceded
to thema placeand cornerintherearso that
theymightbe as a servantto the dogmatic
medicine,and thus theymightact as aux-
iliaries."24
Half a centurylater the bulk of
many pharmacopoeiaswas composed of
chemicalpreparations.And yet, this was a
chemicalrevolution, ratherthan a Paracel-
sian revolution.By thistimeParacelsuswas
Vol. 26 (1984)No. 2
This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 14 Jun 2015 19:17:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
seldomgivencreditas the originatorof the
chemicalremedies.
Again we may turn to historyas a
touchstone fortheperiod.In 1696DanielLe
Clerc (1652-1722)publishedthe firstedition
of his Histoirede la médecine.Contraryto
some, he did give considerablecredit to
Paracelsus for his chemicaldiscoveries.At
least partiallyforthisreason his workwas
severely criticized by John Freind
(1675-1728) in his History of Physick
(1725-1726). Freind, a disciple of Isaac
Newton,was a mechanist whoheldthechairs
of chemistryand medicineat Oxford.He
publishedoriginalworkin bothfields,butin
his chemistryFreind openlyattemptedto
divorce himself from earlier chemical
authors. Indeed, he sought to explain
chemical reactions as the interactionof
sphericalatomspossessedofforcessimilarto
the gravitationalforces that Newton had
postulatedforthe solarsystem.Thiswas an
attempt to establish a Newtonian
chemistry.25
But it is in Freind'shistoryofmedicine
thatwe findthematerialwe seek.For Freind
themysticalreligiousoutlookoftheParacel-
sians couldnotbe tolerated.Freindrejected
Paracelsus as an idle systematizerwhose
cosmology and religious-vitalistic outlook
towardnatureweretheveryantithesis ofthe
new science.At the same timeFreindwas
fully aware of the value of chemically
prepared medicines.Paracelsus, however,
was not to be creditedwiththeirdiscovery.
Instead,likeGuinterearlier,he insistedthat
thehonoroftheirdiscovery mustbe givento
Arabic chemistsand physicians.26 In short,
Andernachas a Galenistand Freind as a
Newtonianhad reachedsimilarconclusions,
that chemicallyprepared remedies were
essentialfor medicine,but that Paracelsus
was to be denieda significant role in their
discovery.
Indeed, almost everywherewe turn
amongeighteenth-century physicianswe find
Paracelsus eitherignoredor criticized.At
Leiden,HermannBoerhaave(1668-1738)in-
fluenceda generationof physiciansthrough
his teachingand his Institutionesmedicae
(1708).Generallyseen as a mechanist, recent
89
researchhas shownhim to be more of an
eclecticin medicine.27He soughta synthesis
utilizingchemicalconceptsin his physiology
even thoughhis bias was clearlyin favorof
themechanists. Butifhewas willingtopraise
both alchemistsand chemistsfor theirin-
vestigationsof the natureof bodies,he had
little good to say about Paracelsus. His
chemicallecturesbegan with an historical
account of that science. Here he credited
Paracelsus withskillin surgery,an under-
standing of the preparationof metallic
substances,the use of opiumand mercury,
and thefactthathe had as gooda knowledge
ofthe"commonpracticeofphysic"as anyof
his contemporaries. "These five concurring
circumstances take in his wholemerit;and
werethematterofall hisglory:therestwas
emptysmoke,and idleostentation."28
Perhaps one would expect a more
favorableestimateof the role of Paracelsus
amongproponents ofthevitalistmedicineat
Montpellier.Reactingagainst the extreme
mechanist interpretations of the
theyplaceda newemphasison
iatrophysicists
the conceptof an inherentlifeforce.But if
theyfoundthe animismof Stahl of great
interest,and if theyreferredon occasionto
theworkofvan Helmont,theirreferences to
Paracelsus are almost non-existent.29 One
notableexceptionis to be foundin Diderot's
Encyclopédie.Here the articleon "Chymie"
was writtenby Gabriel François Venel
(1723-1775), professor of chemistryat
Montpellier.He condemnedthe alchemical
charlatans and those who only devoted
themselvesto the preparationof chemical
medicines.This science was basic for all
othersand it needed a great systematizer;
specifically, it needed a "nouveau
Paracelse."30He had authoredthat great
revolutionwhichhad changedthe face of
com-
medicine andhe has a placeinchemistry
parable to that of Aristotlein philosophy.
And although Paracelsus' writings are
he had donemuch
"absolutelyunintelligible,"
to advancethesubjectthroughtheintroduc-
tionofchemicalremedies.
Far more typicalwas WilliamBlack,
whose Historical Sketch of Medicine and
Surgery (1782) noted that "the wildest
90
This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 14 Jun 2015 19:17:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
madmanin Bedlamcouldnotinventa more
ridiculous rhapsody of nonsense and
unintelligible phrases,thanare containedin
thetheoretical partofParacelsus'writings."31
Black thought that Paracelsus deserved
praisefortheintroduction ofantimonial and
mercurialcompoundsfor internaluse, but
Paracelsushad diedat theearlyage offorty-
seven "to the disgraceof his boastedaurum
potabile,azophs,littledemons,elixirs,and
immortalcatholicons."32 In 1799 Richard
Walker, in his Memoirs of Medicine,also
creditedhimwithintroducing new remedies
buthe addedthatitwas "impossible to excuse
his preposterousvanity in arrogatingto
himselfthe monarchyof medicine,or his
assurance in pretendingto an exemption
fromall painand disease,and eventhepower
ofdeathitself."33
Chemists'opinionsdifferedlittlefrom
the opinions of contemporarymedical
historians. FrederickAccum(1803)dismissed
Paracelsusas a "mostimpetuous man,whoin
ostentation and lies surpassed all his
predecessor alchemists, [and] promised
immortality inthisworldto hisfollowers; but
his prematuredeath. . . exposedhis vanity,
and blastedall theirhopes."34David Uwins,
concernedwith the meaning of the new
of Lavoisierfor medicine(1808),
chemistry
admittedthat"withParacelsusand thoseof
his sect, all was chemistry, but a chemistry
widelydifferent, bothin its firstprinciples
and its practicalapplication, fromthattruly
legitimateand usefulscience whichin the
presentday bears thisappellation."35 Andin
his historicallectures on chemistryJean
Baptiste Dumas regretted that both
chemistry and medicinehad paid dearlyfor
the exaggeratedbeliefofParacelsusregard-
ingthepowerofchemistry inmedicine, which
had exercised an evil influenceon the
ofthescience.36
development
A far moreimportantworkwas Kurt
Sprengel's Versuch einer pragmatischen
geschickteder arzneikunde(5 vols., Halle,
1800-1803),which includes a still useful
abstractof Paracelsian thought.However,
SprengelconcludedthatParacelsuswrotefor
thecommonmanratherthanforscholarsand
thathe hadintroduced thecabala to medicine
because it dispensed with the study of
PharmacyinHistory
languages and other sciences. His was a
revolutionbased on mysticismthat failed
because of his emphasis on fanaticism,
knowledgethroughdivineillumination, and
thefactthathe didnotunderstand theimpor-
tanceofreasoninthesciences.Sprengeladd-
ed thathe coulddo no betterthanto agree
withtheassessmentofGuinterofAndernach
overtwocenturiesbefore.37
We may contrastthese authors,all
membersof the Establishment, withthose
who continuedto identifythemselveswith
alchemyand Paracelsianiatrochemistry.As
theexistenceofan etherialfluidthatexisted
throughout theuniverse.Thisuniversalfluid
he thoughtcould adequately explain the
phenomenaof magnetism,light,heat, elec-
tricity,and gravity.But he wentfarbeyond
thisin theapplicationofhis "magnetic" fluid
to medicine.Here he arguedthatall sickness
was due to obstructions in the flowof the
fluidwithinthehumanbody.The bodyitself
actedlikea magnetand itwas thephysician's
taskto reinforcea naturalpolarityso thatthe
flowwouldbe returned to normal.Theproper
flowresultedin therestoration ofhealthand

recentresearchhas indicated,therewas a harmonybetweenman and nature.Mesmer

continued and livelyinterestinthesesubjects was capableofproducingconvulsive"crises"
throughoutthe eighteenthcentury.38In inhisParisiansalonsand thesewereconvinc-
France the Abbé Nicholas Lenglet du ing to manycontemporary observers.
Fresnoy (1674-1752/5)publishedhis three and medicalapproval
volumeHistoirede la Philosophie Hermétique forhis Seekingscientific
in 1742,and thisremainsa workofvaluefor discovery, Mesmer approachedboth
the historianof alchemy.Here Paracelsus the Academy of Sciences and theRoyalSocie-
was describedas an "exact" authorwhose ty of Medicine. He gained a fewprominent
work was of great importance.39 adherents, but the end resultwas disastrous.
Similarly A commissionwas appointedto in-
Antoine-Joseph Pernety (1716-1800/1) royal
prepareda DictionnaireMytho-Hermétiquevestigate
mesmerism. Includingscientistsas
well known as Franklin, Lavoisier, and
(1758) foralchemists.Paracelsuswas one of the members of the commission con-
thefewauthorshonoredbya separateentry Bailly,
in Pernety'swork.40 He referredto himas a cluded that "Mesmer's fluiddid notexist, the
celebratedGermanwhohad soughtto reform convulsions and other affects of mesmerizing
medicineand had accomplished curesforthe could be attributedto the overheatedim-
most desperatediseases. He acknowledged aginationsofthemesmerists" (1784).42
thathis workswere difficult to understand, This resultled to a torrentof publica-
but his medicinalpreparationsremainedin tionsbothdefending and attackingMesmer.
use, thereby showing their value. For For us itis ofinterestto notethatthesources
PernetyParacelsianmedicinewas identical of Mesmerbecame a subjectof immediate
withHermeticmedicineand therefore could debate. Thus, in his Examen physiquede
be tracedto greatantiquity making truth Magnétisme
its Animal(1785),JeanLouis Carra
self-evident. askedwhetherMesmerwas a trueinnovator
Perhaps the most interesting example or whether he had just renewed older
of a revivedinterestin Paracelsus may be doctrinesof a universalfluidpresentedby
foundin thereactionto mesmerism.41 Franz Paracelsus,RobertFludd,van Helmont,and
Anton Mesmer (1734-1815)was convinced even Isaac Newton?43Only furtherstudy
thatthekeyto thescienceswas tobe foundin wouldanswerthisandfarmoremustbe done

Vol. 26 (1984)No. 2 91

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 14 Jun 2015 19:17:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Man as themicrocosmis joined bythechainsofnatureto his creator,heredepictedas a young
woman.RepresentationsofHermesTrismegistus andParacelsusare shownabovediagramsofthe
four and
elements the three (From:
principles. Tobias Schütz,HarmoníaMacrocosmicum
1654;basedupontwodiagramsin RobertFludd,Utriusquecosmimaiorisscilicetet
Microcosmi,
minorismetaphysica, physicaatque technicahistoria,1617).

to proveor disprovetheexistenceofthefluid mony,cabalismand all mannerof occultin-

itself. vestigations.Indeed,animalmagnetism was
For thosewho sidedwiththe Commis- the most cultivatedof all these at the
sion the connectionwith Paracelsus was moment.45 But if we searchedthe literature
damning.In hisL 'Antimagnétisme . . . (1784) as historians,he added, we wouldfindthe
J. J. Pauletcouldscarcelybelievethatin his firsttraces of this subjectin the work of
day,renowned oflightand scien-
as a century Paracelsus.And as we followthe literature
tificdiscovery,such a person as Mesmer we will findit elucidatedin great detailin
could have excitedthe Parisianpopulace.44 Fludd, Kircher,Maxwell,and, above all, in
The newfascination withthemysterious had the involveddebateon the magneticcureof
led to secretlodges,magic,societiesof har- wounds.46In short, Mesmer had simply

92 PharmacyinHistory

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 14 Jun 2015 19:17:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
appropriated tohimself themagnetictheories
of his predecessors.Paulet's views were
secondedby M. Thouret,a memberof the
Société Royale de Médecinewho published
his ... Doutessur Le Magnétisme Animalin
1784. He too attackedthealchemicalorigins
ofthistheoryand affirmed thattheviewsof
Paracelsus were identical with those of
Mesmer.47
Mesmer always insisted on his own
originality,but manyof his own followers
revelledin the similarity of his work with
Renaissance mysticism.A work on La
Maçonnerie Mesmerienne (1784) by an
anonymous authorshowedtheheavyreliance
placed by Mesmer on ancient and
Renaissance thought-including that of
Paracelsus-but arguedthatthisfactadded
to ratherthan diminishedfromthe impor-
tance of his work.48Another supporter,
AnthonyFrançois Delandine (1756-1820)
publisheda defenseof mesmerismin 1785
which included an extensive historical
accountin whichhe discussedthe views of
Paracelsuson the universalfluidand bodily
polarityand impliedthathisconceptsdidnot
differ fromthoseofMesmer.49
A finalexamplemaybe takenfromthe
workof M. Joyanda "Dr. en Médecinede la
Faculté de Besaçon, Médecinede l'Hôpital
militairede Brest." His major workis the
Précis du Siècle deParacelse(1787).50Thisis
thefirstvolume(and theonlyone published)
of a two-volume workthat was plannedto
show the Paracelsian origin of Mesmer's
thought.Nearly seven hundredand fifty
pages in length,the Précis representsthe
mostdetailedstudyofitssortsurviving from
theeighteenth century.
JoyandadmiredMesmer,but he had
been disappointedby him. He was clearly
impressedby Mesmer'sdescriptionof the
universalfluidand animalmagnetism. Buthe
was also awareofthegreatdiscoveriesofthe
past centuryin the physicalsciencesdue to
theworkof Descartes,Newtonand Leibniz.
The workofMesmerseemedto himto be of
the same orderof magnitude, but the Vien-
nese physicianhad not publisheda proper
explanationofhistheoryand he had in effect
deniedhimselfthe honorhe deserved.51 But
Vol.26 (1984)No. 2
This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 14 Jun 2015 19:17:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
aboveall,Joyand'shistoricalstudieshad con-
vinced him of the close connectionof
Mesmer'sviewswiththoseofParacelsus.He
had traveledto Paris in 1784to visitMesmer
and to discussthismatterwithhim.Mesmer,
however,didnotshareJoyand's viewsand,to
thelatter'schagrin,he had notnamedhima
memberof the newly formedSociété de
l'HarmonieUniverselle.52 Clearlydistressed,
Joyandthendecidedto publishhis research,
his "Siècle de Paracelse,et en montrant des
découvertesqui appartiennent à Paracelse,
d'obligerM. Mesmerà ne plustenirsecretce
que les progès de la physique. . ,"53It is
unfortunate that the second volumeof the
Précis was not published,fortherehe had
plannedto make fullyevidentthe factthat
theviewsofMesmerhad beenbasedprimari-
ly on alchemy and that they had been
developedin greatdetailby Paracelsus.54
WithMesmerthenwe have one more
case of the Establishmentpitted against
thosewhoformedno partofit. Here we see
Mesmeralternately damnedand praisedfor
hisrelationship to Paracelsus.Anyparticular
statementin thedebateis bestunderstood in
relationto the scientific
bias ofits author.
Conclusion
It is surelyclear that in the late six-
teenthand the early seventeenthcenturies
the work of Paracelsus was understoodto
havebeena majorinfluence ontheperiod.He
had been rejected early by the medical
establishment, butinthecourseofthisdebate
therehad been a relatively rapidacceptance
of chemicallypreparedmedicines.But the
worksofParacelsusrelatedto farmorethan
pharmaceuticalreform. They were also
associatedwitha religiousandmystical world
view far removed from the emerging
mechanicalphilosophy thattriumphed in the
late seventeenth century.Manymembersof
the medicalestablishment foundthat they
could accept the new medicinesbut not the
religious mysticism of Paracelsian
cosmology.
Historical interpretation quickly
enteredinto this debate. Most Paracelsians
argued that Paracelsus had rediscovered
93
ancientmedicaltruthsthatcouldbe traced
back to the divine knowledgeknown to
Adam. Galenists argued rather that
Paracelsushad stolenthe chemicalprepara-
tionsfromtheworkofBasil Valentine,Isaac
Hollandusor othermedievalauthors-or, at
best, rediscovered the chemical phar-
maceuticalsof Arab physicians.In these
cases historywas beingemployed to preserve
the authorityof the Galenic texts while
addingthenewremediesto medicalpractice,
withlittleor no creditgivento Paracelsus.
This latter solutionalso appealed to
eighteenth-centurymechanists. Freind,
Boerhaaveand mostoftheircontemporaries
didnotargueovertheimportance ofchemical
remedies, but their historiesassignedtheir
discoveryto an earlier period so that
Paracelsuscould be brandeda thiefrather
thana discoverer. As fortheworldsystemof
Paracelsus, with its dependence on the
macrocosmand the microcosm, it was to be
ignoredor attacked.And as we have seen,
KurtSprengel'sassessmentofParacelsusat
the opening of the nineteenthcentury
acknowledged thetruthofGuinterofAnder-
nach'sassessmentofParacelsuswrittenover
two centuriesearlier.Onlywhenwe turnto
eighteenth-century historians,who were
the
beyond pale of the new scienceand who
formedno partoftheacademicworld,do we
finda continued interestand appreciationof
Paracelsus. We see this in du Fresnoy,
Pernety,andinthemanynewalchemicaland
inatrochemicalpublicationsthat appeared
throughout thecentury. Mostinteresting,we
findParacelsusat thecenterofa new storm
ofhistoricaldebateinthereactionto Mesmer
during the mid-1780s.
I began by statingthat historiansdo
writefromthebasis oftheirownbeliefs,and
I believe that the examples given
demonstrate such a tendency.I also stated
that Paracelsus was largely ignored by
historiansof science until recently,but
perhapsthis statementshouldbe modified.
The Romanticperioddid resultin important
new studiesofParacelsusand van Helmont.
Furthermore,historiansof medicineand
pharmacy alwaysrealizedthattheycouldnot
ignore Paracelsus even thoughmanyof the
94
This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 14 Jun 2015 19:17:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
nineteenth-century accounts,suchas thoseof
Darembergand Haeserwerehighly 54a
critical.
of
Still,thedevelopment thehistory ofscience
in this century generally bypassed
Paracelsus. The reason, I believe,is to be
found in its seventeenth-and eighteenth-
centuryheritage.The Newtoniantriumph
had swept all otherfieldsto the side. The
most successful sciences were obviously
physicsand astronomy. Thesewereresponsi-
blefortheScientific Revolution, notmedicine
or chemistry. And if we lookat some of the
mostinfluential historiesofsciencefromthe
nineteenth centurywe recognizethisbiased
heritage.
WilliamWhewell'sHistoryoftheInduc-
tiveSciences(1837)-referredto as the first
"real"history ofsciencewhenI was a student
and then still suggestedas a usefultext-
dismissed Paracelsus with two short
references,one ofthemto indicatetheharm-
fulmysticism oftheperiodhe livedin.55And
neitherin his History of the Intellectual
Development ofEurope (2 vols., 1863)norin
hisalmostunbelievably popularHistoryofthe
ConflictBetween Religionand Science(1874)
did John William Draper mention
Paracelsus.56As forW. E. H. Lecky,he pass-
ed overtheworkofParacelsusinshortorder,
mentioning onlyhisbeliefin theexistenceof
sylphs.57Clearly the work of Paracelsus
formedno significant partofrationalthought
forhisHistoryoftheRise andInfluence ofthe
Spirit of Rationalism in Europe (2 vols.,
1865).
However,thegroundsfora newassess-
ment were even then being laid by the
chemicalhistoriesof Kopp,Hoefer,and von
Meyer, the pharmaceuticalhistories of
Schelenzand Berendes,and thenewinterest
in medievaland Renaissanceperiodsshown
by historiansof medicine,especially the
Paracelsianresearchof Karl Sudhoff.58 The
materialwas indeedthereforscholarswhen
they were ready for it. As the historyof
sciencebegan to incorporatematerialfrom
the historyof medicineand the historyof
pharmacy,and as it turned frompurely
and internalist
positivistic studiesto a more
contextualapproach,we have founda grow-
ing appreciationof the role of Paracelsusin
PharmacyinHistory
thedevelopment ofthe ScientificRevolution
as a whole. To be sure this change has
resultedfromfreshstudiesof the texts of
Paracelsus and his disciples,but we should
not forget the importance that these
Renaissanceauthorsthemselvesplaced on
history.We shouldunderstandalso how our
own historieshave been influencedby the
bias ofmechanist
historiansofthelateseven-
teenthand the eighteenthcenturies.When
we do this we may recognizethe long and
heavy hand of historicaltraditionand this
maylead us to be morehumblein assessing
our ownefforts.

Notes and References

1. MorrisR. CohenandI.E. Drabkin, (eds.)A SourceBookin 19. OlausBorrichius, De ortuetprogressu chemiaedissertatio

GreekScience(Cambridge: HarvardU.P., 1958),pp. 33-38 as printedin the Bibliothecachemicacuriosa,ed. Jean
(Proclus),468-73(Celsus). JacquesManget(2 vols.,Geneva:Chouet,G. De Torunes, et
2. Gui de Chauliac'shistoryof surgeryis conveniently al., 1702)1, pp. 1-37(12).
availablein ThePortableMedievalReader,JamesBruce 20. HermannConringius, De HerméticaMedicinaLibri Duo
RossandMaryMartinMcLaughlin (NewYork:TheViking . . . (2nd ed., Helmstedt:typis& sumptibus H. Müller,
Press,1973),pp. 640-49. 1669),p. 345.
3. MyviewsontheParacelsiantradition aretobe foundinThe 21. See the review of Olaus Borrichius, Hermetis,
ChemicalPhilosophy: ParacelsianScienceandMedicinein Aegyptiorum, et chemicorum sapientia ab Hermanni
theSixteenth andSeventeenth Centuries (2 vols.,NewYork: Conringii animadversionibusvindicata per Olaum
ScienceHistoryPublications, 1977). Borrichium (Hafniae:sumptibusP. Hanboldi,1674)in the
4. Petrus Severinus,Idea medicinaephilosophicae,3rd. Philosophical TransactionsoftheRoyalSocietyofLondon
edition(Hagae Comitis:AdrianClacq, 1660),cap. 1, "De 10 (no. 113)(April26, 1675),296-301(297).
ortu& progressuArtisMedicae,Medicorumque diversis 22. In additiontothereference innote21 see thereviewofthe
Sectis,"pp. 1-5. De ortuet progressu chemiaein thePhilosophicalTrans-
5. AllenG. Debus,"Mathematics and Naturein theChemical actions2 (no.39)(1668),779andthereviewoftheHermetis
TextsoftheRenaissance," Ambix15 (1968),1-28,211.
Aegyptiorum et chemicorum ... in the Journal des Sçavans
6. R. Bostocke,Esq., The difference betwenethe auncient 5(1675), 209-211.
Phisicke. . . and the latterPhisicke(London:Robert 23. The exchangewas referred to as important by Hermann
Walley,1585),sig.Fiiv. Boerhaavein his introductory lectureon the historyof
7. ThomasTymme, A DialoguePhilosophicall (London,1612), andtwohistorical worksbyBorrichius
chemistry (including
sig.A3. the De ortu et progressuchemiae) began Manget's
8. Bostocke'shistoryis reprinted withan introduction and fundamental alchemical theBibliotheca
collection, chemica
annotations inAllenG. Debus,"AnElizabethan Historyof curiosa.
MedicalChemistry," AnnalsofScience18 (1962,published 24. Londinensis
Pharmacopoeia (2nded.,London:J.Marriott,
1964),1-29. 1618),"CandidoLectori."
9. See Debus,TheChemicalPhilosophy 1, pp. 131-34. 25. Arnold Thackray,Atoms and Powers: An Essay on
10. Ibid.,pp. 135-39.
Newtonian Matter-Theoryand the Developmentof
11. Ibid.,pp. 139-45.
Chemistry (Cambridge: HarvardU.P., 1970),pp. 52-73.
12. J. Guintherius vonAndernach, De medicinaveterietnoua
26. JohnFreind,The HistoryofPhysick;From theTimeof
turncognoscenda, turnfadunda commentary duo(2 vols.,
Basel: Henricpetrina, Galen,tothebeginning oftheSixteenth Century... (2 vols.,
1571)2, p. 650. 4thed., London:M. Cooper,1750)2, p. 204.
13. Ibid.,pp. 26, 28, 621-22.
14. Ibid.,pp. 31-32. 27. I referhereto thePh.D. thesisbyKathleenWellman at the
15. See Debus,TheChemicalPhilosophy University of Chicagoon JulienOffrayde La Mattrie
1, pp. 191-200.
16. DanielSennert, Chymistry MadeEasie and Useful.Or,The (1983).See Chapter3, "Boerhaave:TheMedicalHeritage."
andDisagreement 28. H. Boerhaave,A NewMethodofChemistry; including the
Agreement oftheChymists andGalenists
(London:PeterCole,1662),p. 14. The Englishtranslation Theoryand PracticeoftheArt:Laid downonMechanical
is a severe abridgmentof the De chymicorum cum Principles, andaccommodated totheUsesofLife.Thewhole
Aristotelicis et Galenicisconsensuac dissensuliber1., making a Clear and Rational System of Chemical
controversias plurimas tarnphilosophisquam medicis Philosophy, trans.P. Shaw and E. Chambers(London:J.
cognituutiles continens(Wittenberg: OsbornandT. Longman,1727),pp. 22-30(29).
Apud Zachariam
Schurerum, 1619)madebyNicholasCulpeperand Abdiah 29. F. Bérard,DoctrineMédicalede l'Écolede Montpellier, et
Cole.FortheLatintextofthehistory andthediscussion of Comparisonde ses Principesavec ceuxdes autresÉcoles
ParacelsusI usedthethirdedition (Paris:ApudSocietatem, dEurope(Montpellier and Paris:A la Librairieau Rabais,
1633),pp. 17-50. 1819); ThéophileBordeu,OeuvresComplètes de Bordeu,
17. Sennert, Chymistrie MadeEasie, p. 15. précédées d'unenoticesursa vieetsurses ouvrages par M.
18. Ibid.,p. 16. le Chevalier Richerand(2 vols.,Paris:chezCailleet Ravier,

Vol.26 (1984)No. 2 95

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 14 Jun 2015 19:17:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Libraires,1818)2, pp. 548-734("Recherches surl'Histoire 45. Ibid.,p. 5.
de la Médecine"). 46. Ibid.,pp. 7-31.
30. G. F. Venel,"Chymie" in M. Diderotand M. D'Alembert 47. M. Thouret,Rechercheset Doutes sur Le Magnétisme
(eds.), Encyclopédie,ou Dictionnaire Raisonné des Animal(Paris:Prault,1784),p. 24.
Sciences,desArtset desMetiers,vol. 3 (Paris: Briasson, 48. M. J. B. B. xxxx,D. M., La Macconerie Mesmerienne, ou
David,Le Bretonand Durand,1753),p. 410. Les LeçonsPrononcées Par Fr. Mocet,Riàla, Themola,
31. WilliamBlack, An HistoricalSketchof Medicineand Seca, & Célaphon, de l'OrdredesF. de l'Harmonie, enLoge
Surgery,From Their Originto thePresentTime . . . Mesmerienne de Bordeaux,l'an desInfluences 5784,& du
(London:J. Johnson, 1782),p. 185. Mesmérisme le 1er(Amsterdam: n. p., 1784).
32. Ibid. 49. Ant.Franc.Delandine,De La Philosophie Corpusculaire,
33. RichardWalker, Memoirs ofMedicine; Including a Sketchof ou des Connoissances et desProcédésMagnétiques chezles
Medical Historyfrom the Earliest Accountsto the DiversPeuples(Paris:Cuchet,1785),pp. 31-33.
Eighteenth Century (London:J.Johnson, 1799),p. 185. 50. M. Joyand,Dr. en Médecinede la Facultéde Besançon,
34. FrederickAccum,Systemof Theoreticaland Practical de Brest,PrécisduSièclede
Médecinde l'Hôpitalmilitaire
Chemistry (2 vols.,Philadelphia: Kimber& Conrad,1808)1,
Paracelse(Paris:de l'Imprimerie de Monsieur, 1787).
p. 10.
35. DavidUwins,M.D.,ModernMedicine;Containing A Brief 51. M. Joyand,Lettresur le siècle de Paracelse (Paris: de
ExpositionofthePrincipalDiscoveries andDoctrinesthat l'imprimeriede Monsieur, 1786),p. 3.
have Occasionedthe RecentAdvancement of Medical 52. Ibid.,p. 5.
Philosophy, withStrictures onthePresentStateofMedical 53. Ibid.,pp. 5-6.
Practice,and An Enquiryhowfar thePrinciplesof the 54. Ibid.,pp. 14-16.
HealingArt may becometheSubjectsof unprofessional 54a. Ch.Daremberg, HistoiredesSciencesMédicales... (2 vols.,
Research(London:PrintedforSamuelTipperand soldby Paris:J.B. Baillièreet Fils,1870),1,pp.361-464;Heinrich
WilliamNorman,1808),p. 17-18. Haeser, Lehrbuchder Geschichte der Medicinund der
36. J.B. Dumas,Leçonssurla Philosophie Chimique . . . (Paris: epidemischen Krankheiten(3rd edition,3 vols., Jena:
Ébrard,Libraire,n.d.),pp. 37-43(43) (lectureofApril16, HermannDufft,1875 and Jena: GustavFischer,1881,
1836). 1882),2, pp. 69-105.
37. KurtSprengel, Histoirede la Médecine, dupuissonorigine 55. WilliamWhewell, D. D., HistoryoftheInductive Sciences,
jusqu 'au dix-neuvième siècle,trans,fromthe2ndGerman fromtheEarliesttothePresentTime,3rded. (2 vols.,New
editionbyA. J. L. Jourdan (9 vols.,Paris:Deterville & T. York:Appleton, 1873)1, p. 226.
Desoer,1815-1820) 3, pp. 284,333. 56. John William Draper, History of the Intellectual
38. FortheFrenchscenesee AllenG. Debus,"TheParacelsians
in Development ofEurope,RevisedEdition(2 vols.,NewYork
in Eighteenth Century France:A Renaissance Tradition and London:Harper,1900);JohnWilliamDraper,History
theAgeoftheEnlightenment," Ambix28(1981),36-54.The
of the ConflictBetweenReligionand Science,25th ed.
German sceneisbeststudiedthrough themanypublications
(London:KeganPaul,Trench,Trübner& Co., 1910).
ofAntoineFaivre.
39. Abbé Nicholas Lenglet du Fresnoy,Histoire de la
57. W. E. H. Lecky,HistoryoftheRise and Influence ofthe
Hermétique ... (3 vols.,A la Haye: Pierre SpiritofRationalismin Europe,RevisedEdition(2 vols.,
Philosophie NewYork:Appleton, 1882)1, p. 67.
Gosse,1742)1, pp. 279-84(see especially 280,284).
40. Dom Antoine-Joseph Pernety, Dictionnaire Mytho- 58. Hermann Kopp, Geschichteder Chemie (4 vols.,
Hermétique,dans lequel on trouve Les Allégories Braunschweig, 1843,1844,1845,1847;reprint Hildesheim:
Fabuleusesdes Poetes,les Métaphores, les Énigmeset les Georg01ms,1966);Ferdinand Hoefer, Histoiredela chimie
Termesbarbaresdes PhilosophesHermétiques expliqués depuisles tempsles plus reculésjusqu 'à notreépoque(2
(Paris:Bauche,1758),p. 266. vols.,Paris, 1842-1843);ErnstVon Meyer,A Historyof
41. A stimulating recentstudyis that of RobertDarnton, Chemistry FromEarliest Timesto thePresentDay . . .,
Mesmerism and theEnd oftheEnlightenment in France trans. George M'Gowan (London and New York:
(Cambridge, Mass: HarvardU.P., 1968). Macmillan,1891); HermannSchelenz,Geschichteder
42. Ibid.,p. 64. Pharmazie(Berlin1904);J.Berendes, Das Apothekenwesen
43. • Jean Louis Carra, Examen Physiquedu Magnétisme (Stuttgart,1907).OfKarlSudhoff thereare so manyworks
Animal;AnalysedesEloges& descritiques qu 'onena faits to referto that it is difficult to make a choice,but
Et Développment desvéritables fundamental forall subsequent research were(1) hisedition
jusqu' à present; Rapports,
souslesquelsondoitenconsidérer lePrincipe,la Théorie, la oftheworks,theSämtlicheWerke, editedbyKarlSudhoff
à ParisChez and WilhelmMatthiessen[15 vols., Munich/Berlin: R.
Pratique& leSecret(A Londres,Et se trouve,
Libraire,1785),pp. 5, 10, 17. Oldenbourg (vols.6-9:O. W. Barth),1922-1933] and(2) the
EugeneOnfroy,
44. J. J. Paulet, L Antimagnétisme ou Origine,Progrés, Bibliographica Paracelsica(Berlin:VerlagGeorgReimer,
Décadence,Renouvellement et Réfutation du Magnétisme 1894; reprinted Graz: Akademische Druck- u.
Animal(London,1784),p. 1. Verlagsanstalt, 1958).

96 PharmacyinHistory

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 14 Jun 2015 19:17:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions